' IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, J.--- Respondent No,3 claiming himself to be the owner of` the property in question filed an ejectment petition on 31-7-2009 on the ground of default in payment of by the tenant/petitioner since 1-1-2009. The learned Special Judge (Rent) vide order dated 14-1-2010 refused to grant leave to contest the petition to the petitioner and straightaway ordered his ejectment. When such order was called in question by way of an appeal, learned Appellate authority allowed the same on 8-4-2010 and the matter was remanded back to the learned Special Judge (Rent) for re-consideration of the petition for leave to contest filed by the petitioner . The said acceptance of the appeal and the remand of the matter was never challenged any further by respondent No,3, whereas in post-remand proceedings firstly learned Special Judge
(Rent) vide order dated 7-9-2010 refus ed to accept the prayer of the tenant for dismissal of the ejectment petition on the ground of nonobservance of the mandatory legal steps as are provided in the then newly-enacted Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007 and subsequently vide judgment dated 2-12-2010, leave was refused to the tenant/petitioner and again an ejectment order was passed. Such findin gs were maintained in appeal when the learned Addl. District Judge dismissed the same on 2-3-2012. The findings so arrived at by the fora below are challenged in the instant constitutional petition.
2. Learned counsel for -the petitioner while placing reliance on the provisions of the Rent Law has argued that the learned Special Judge (Rent) has failed to observe the mandatory basic requirements of law, in entertaining the ejectment petition, in issuance of a notice to the tenant according to law, in dealing with the subsequent proceedings, in failing to require the tenant in -the ejectment petition to file a petition for leave to contest and then in spite of the specific prayer refusing to dismiss the ejectment petition on account of noncompliance of the legal requirements provided in the relevant law. On account of all such lapses, proceedings carried out were having no legal value and the lapses on the part of the Special Judge (Rent) were suf ficed to vitiate the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has controverted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and argued that notwithstanding some deficiency in the procedural requirements, substantial justice was extended to the parties and the view ultimately taken by the courts in passing the ejectment order has every protection of law .
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. It is very painful that the lower courts seem to be quite ignorant that the statutory provisions which are to be strictly adhered to by the said fora particularly with regard to the newly-promulgated Rent Laws are not being properly attendeeto. This Court in the case of "Younas Siddique v. Mst, Tahira Jabeen" (PLD 2009 Lahor e 469) has by way of a well reasoned and detailed judgment put a great emphasis on observance of all the codal formalities by the Rent Tribunals. This Court in the same judgment directed the office to circulate a copy of the judgment to all the learned District Judges in the province who were expected to direct the Rent Tribunals dealing with the cases filed under new Rent Laws to act with due care and caution. The matters coming to this Court from the Rent Tribunals do disclose that the care and caution which was expected to be adopted by the said fora is completely tieing ignored. Either the supervisory jurisdiction of the learned District Judges in the province has come to some lower scale or by now it has become .a custom that the directions as contained in the judgments of the superior Courts could lightly be ignored. It is a dilemm a and the Member Inspection.
Team of this Court has to take notice of such situation that when particularly the Courts below are directed to observe certain provisions of law as per their requirement why such directions of law are conveniently being ignored or overlooked.
6. Coming to the case in hand, it is incumbent upon the Rent Tribunal in view of section 21 of Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007 in case an applicatron under the said law is filed, the Tribunal shall issue notice to the respondent in the form prescribed in the schedule for appearance of the respondent on a date not later than 10 days through:
(i) Process Server
(ii) Registered Post A.D.
(iii) Courier Service.
' Such notice is to be accompanied by copies of the application and documents annexed with the application.
This provision goes to provide further that if the respondent fails to appear and the Rent Tribunal is satisfied that the notice has not been served on the respondent or the respondent is wilfu lly avoiding service of notice, the Tribunal may direct service of the notice by:-
(i) Affixing a copy of the notice at some conspicuous part of the rented premises or residence of the respondent or
(ii) Publication in the press, electronic media or any other mode and after adopting of such modes, the Rent Tribunal may proceed ex parte against the respondent and pass the final order .
' The notice prescribed in the schedule under section 21(i) of the Ordinance (ibid) do reveal that through the said notice, the respondent is to be requi red to obtain leave to contest the applica tion within 10 days of the date of first appearance mentioned in the said notice. The interim orders as have been maintained by the learned Rent Tribunal in the present case, disclose that from the very inception, the requirements as have been provided in the statutory provisions have not been adhered to. On 31-7-2009 when for the first time, the ejectment petition was placed before the learned Tribunal, notice was ordered to be issued through registered post A.D. Only and there is no mention in the said order and otherwise there is no evidence available on the record to establish that whether the Tribunal by mentioning the notice meant the notice as provided in the prescribed form in the schedule of the said law and surprisingly on the very next day i,e, 28-9-2009, learned Rent Tribunal only on the basis of a report of the process server has held that through ordinary mode, service upon the respondent was not possible, therefore, it was directed that through substituted service by publication in the press, the respondent be notified about the pendency of the ejectment petition. On 4-10-2009 when the respondent is shown to have appeared in person, after supply of a copy of the ejectment petition, he was asked to file a reply thereto and again on 5-11-2009, an opportunity for filing written reply was granted and when on 18-12-2009, a leave petition along with the prayer for rejection of the ejectment petition was filed, it was subsequently termed as a time-barred petition and was dismissed. From the day to day proceedings recorded in the interim order sheet by the learned Rent Tribunal and even from the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, it is, thus, established that no notice was issued through courier service. The mandatory requirement of a notice to be accompanied by a copy of application and documents annexed therewith was also not complied with. In order to invoke the penal provi sions, it was necessary for the Rent Tribunal to have issued a notice in accordance with the law under section 21(i) read with the schedule of the Ordinance, 2007 (ibid) and further that such notice could have been issued only after examining the petition and satisfaction that it is accompanied , by the requisite documents. As noted above, this has not been done and as such there is no question of causing of an appearance . By the petitioner before the Tribunal so as to. Make 10 day's time for filing the petition for leave to contest running.
7. The important fact is that when in the first round, the appeal of the petition er was allowed by the learned Addl. District Judge, the same was never challenged wherein the procedure adopted by the Rent Tribunal was held as absolutely illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law but in post-re mand proceedings, the learned Rent Tribunal again fell in same error and by ignoring that no mandatory require ments were fulfilled and it is a matter where leave is to be granted as the petition for leave to contest discloses sufficient grounds for production of oral evidence, the Rent Tribunal again refused to grant leave to contest the petition and the findings so arrived at by the Tribunal were upheld in some illegal manner by the learned First Appellate Court.
8. Having observed the above position, it is held that the findings arrived at by the lower fora are illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law and the mandatory requirements of the provisions of newly enacted Rent Laws have not been complied with which vitiates the very proceedings of the petition, the result is that this petition is allowed and the judgments arrived at by the Special Judge (Rent) and learned Addl. District Judge dated 2-12-2010 and 2-3-2012 respectively are set aside and the ejectment petition filed by the respondent No,3 is dismissed.